Gary,
>>Didn't mean to upset anybody I certainly wouldn't suggest making any existing boats ineligible, just thought you were canvasing ideas and they were my thoughts.
I am collecting these thoughts and I, for one, didn't feel upset by your post. So please go ahead.
I will of course make a selection of ideas we'll continue to run with and which are of lesser concern. I'm sure you understand that.
With regard to your example.
>>I have read the F16 rules carefully and if you made the lower section of the mast heavy enough you could make a ultra light top section and still have a tip weight of 6.5kg. as the full length of the mast is being weighed.
I understand, allow me to react in the following and I'm still familairizing myself with your proposal:
1st There isn't much point in restriction something when the expected gain is neglectable. With regard to your example how will a 6.5 kg tip weight mast with a 13 kg lower halve and a 4.33 kg upper halve, thus 17.33 kg overal weight with a 1st order moment of 55,23 kg*m to be prefered over a normal mast of 13 kg overall weight and thus 6.5 tip weight + 55.25 kg*m first order moment ? For starters the "new" mast is 4.33 kg overall with respect to the old mast.
2nd How big is the risk and how serious is the thread that someone would invest a very large sum of money for and preceived gain that may be measured in a few second around the course ?
There should be a very serious reply to both of these points to warrant a rule change. In short it must be made clear that the current tipweight rule isn't leveling the playing field enough already.
>>However I do like the simplicity of the F16 rules and can see you have tried to keep them few in number which is why I made the suggestion on materials as it is much harder to play with mass produced Aluminium products and generaly cheaper.
To keep the rules simple and easil administered is trully a significant concern. With respect to carbon; a builder ones said to me that back in the old days sailors were trying to outlaw alu mast as they were fragile and expensive with respect to wooden masts. It was only a matter of time when teh alu masts proved to be stronger and cheaper. It is not unthinkable that something similar might actually happen to carbon masts as well.
Also the F16 rules are aimed at limiting performance along broad lines. We strive to work towards cheap designs but feel that paying double the price for a boat that is as good as neglectably faster if noticable at all is a selfdefeating excersize. We currently see buyers go for the cheaper F16's over the more expensive ones. Apparent none are to concerned about having the ultimate. I for one with have no issues sailing against another F16 of 4 times the cost as I know that any extra gain are easily lost by not getting into clear air at the start for example. Chances are that teh skipper just spend 3 times to much on a boat that is unlikely to win him any races unless his skill was of winner quality already. Of course that last stance is what we are promoting and what the mossies themself are proving over and over again. Sail well and you come out on top even on a boat with arguable a (huge?)10 % theoretical performance disadvantage.
Please lets continue on this discussion and see where we end up
Regards
Wouter
